Evolution of Conscious Reality
The Nature of Consciousness’ Reality
In order to understand the true nature of consciousness in reality we must simply observe its evolutionary effects on the physical world, much the same way we discovered and learned about the invisible force of gravity; we must understand the dualistic illusion of our sensory reality, how it is possible and why it is needed, how it has negatively affected our belief systems and why we should want to remove its influence on the ways we believe, as well as the bi-directional evolution of the collective and individual consciousness and dualism’s needed use for slowing down the exponential evolution of consciousness.
Why did consciousness evolve civilizations of enormous populations?
From an evolutionary psychological standpoint, we conscious minded humans learned that survival, consistent protection and the procreation of our species was ensured in large groups; this human behavior adapted further to provide modern lawful society for a more safe, comfortable life and experiences of abundant creation through advanced technology, allowing us to fulfill our need for a deeper understanding of reality by evolving a higher form of conscious knowledge without our ancestor’s constant primitively preoccupied concerns with survival and protection; also, we are now more preoccupied with safeguarding against reproduction rather than ensuring it due to the global human population of 8 billion people.
If everything’s fundamentally the same in physical reality, from material objects to living organisms, why does everything we see appear so separate and different?
There are two types of explanation needed to understand this required illusion: a scientific and conceptual understanding of how dualism is possible and was needed for our minds to evolve.
Everything that you see in reality is fundamentally composed of the same thing, atoms vibrating at different frequencies and densities. Quantum physics has proven that once anything is broken down to atoms which we once thought of as only solid clumps of matter until Einstein came along; there is nothing there but empty space and pure energy. Our sensory systems that interpret information from our surroundings for the brain to understand are what cause the perceived differences in the things we observe, the illusion. Kowalski and Westen (2009) acknowledge that the human sensory systems, visual, auditory, olfactory (smell), gustatory (taste), touch (pressure, temperature, and pain), proprioceptive (sensory information about body’s position and movement), vestibular (sensory information on position of body in space by sensing gravity and movement), and kinesthetic (sensory information about movement and position of limbs and other parts of the body relative to one another) all have specialized cells that respond to environmental stimuli called sensory receptors, which are used to transform the vibrational energy from environmental stimuli into a neural impulse that can be understood by the brain, a process referred to as transduction (Kowalski & Westen, 2009).
Each sensory system is capable of experiencing different yet specific forms of vibrational energy within a limited range of a certain frequency in physical reality, the more atomically dense with a faster vibration something is, the more solid something feels and the more light it reflects back to the eyes due to less empty space between more tightly packed atoms. The less atomically dense with a slower vibration something is, the softer it feels and reflects less light back to the eyes due to increased empty space that absorbs most of it between less tightly packed atoms. For example, a metal doorknob is denser and reflects more light than a wooden door which is less dense and reflects less light than the doorknob; the wooden door vibrates at a frequency that is slower than the metal doorknob but is still faster than, say, a couch cushion.
Can you imagine if we actually perceived everything as constantly vibrating and shapeless blobs of light energy emitted from the atoms of everything we saw? We would not be able to tell one thing from another unless it was a living thing then we would know it was living because it would be moving around as much as us humans, if that’s what we would even call ourselves since we would be beings of purely reflected light; that’s as much knowledge as we could gain without differentiation and things appearing solidly separate in reality. We could only know what was living and what was not by judging its movement in space; without any other forms of differentiation we would not be able to develop any further concepts.
This would not work because the evolution of consciousness is dependent upon our conscious awareness evolving into a state of higher consciousness from our desire for a deeper understanding and acquiring knowledge about the intuitively known illusion of “physical” reality; the great philosopher Plato, who died in the year 347 B.C., also intuitively knew about this dualistic (physical/nonphysical) illusion of reality and believed that the nonphysical reality was more real than the physical.
Why would reality even need to be an illusion?
Conceptually, really think about this question in consideration to this dualistic illusion of reality: “If a magician showed you how an illusion worked before first performing the illusion for you, would it still be just as exciting and mysterious enough for you to be as interested in wanting to try to understand it rather than if you had seen the illusion performed first without knowing how it worked?” Seeing the illusion without knowing how it works is what draws our focused interest toward the illusion and brings about the continuous mental motivation and determined action to understand the illusion (what we experience in “physical” reality and the persistently motivated desire to go beyond what we experience with our senses to understand how it truly works)!
Just like most people see the illusion of two older people before realizing that they are actually three other people deeper in the illusion; symbolic that there is a deeper image within the illusion of first appearances! We must look past external appearances (the illusion) to find the truth inside (the reality).
Dualistic Belief Systems
Duality has produced dichotomies such as happy/sad, true/false, right/wrong, negative/positive, bad/good, conflict/peace, illusion/reality, etc. leading people to believe that it has to be one or the other without proper consideration for the gray areas in between when it comes to discussing concepts, beliefs, events, humans, etc.; we form our belief systems with only the “absolute” best sides of these dichotomies in mind and believe the other side is the “absolute” worst at which we make every attempt to avoid it, although continuing to mostly focus our minds energy on the worst side to avoid it which manifests the worst into our reality, without understanding that both sides are dependent upon each other to exist and that we can only avoid the “absolute” worst by pulling our continuous attention away from it by focusing mainly on the “absolute” best instead; I used the quotes around the word “absolute” to signify that there is no absolute or clearly distinct line separating within our belief systems exactly what is always good, true, right, or positive which leads us into conflicting with one another over different belief systems.
If there was a clear line denoting what is “absolutely” positive, good, true or right, we would not need judges, lawyers and juries when it comes to making major decisions about a person’s life; it’s more appropriate to state that something is more true/less true, more right/less right or more positive/less positive because while I may not feel as positive on a particular day does not imply that I’m feeling more negative that day, I can still be more positive than negative, just not as positive in comparison to a day when I was feeling super positive. The beliefs from the old dualistic ways of thinking would assume that if I wasn’t feeling positive, then I must be feeling negative; this way of believing is just too simple when considering something as complex as emotions, belief systems or any experience of reality.
However, our beliefs have been developed under the influence of dualism and bring us to feel that our personal belief systems are “absolutely” right and if the belief system of another conflicts with our own, then theirs must be “absolutely” wrong, causing us to automatically reject with unconscious effort any new information that does not fit within our own belief system rather than considering the possibility that any part of another’s beliefs may possibly be more accurate or desirable than a part of our own and may actually be able to fit in with our own beliefs; this dualistic way of thinking makes a person seem to lack understanding, interest and acceptance while being stubborn, rejecting of other’s beliefs and pushy in their own beliefs.
People cling hard to their beliefs because they feel that their beliefs are the only thing that make them who they are and accepting a part of someone else’s beliefs means completely reworking our own entire belief system to include this new information, which is quite difficult when you consider that our own belief system has been developing around and is connected to every prior belief since childhood and includes socially accepted beliefs that we are not even consciously aware of. It’s important that we simply realize that most of our beliefs aren’t our own anyways, we have acquired them from family, society, religion, friends, etc. Also, our belief systems are strongly attached to our personal constructs of reality!
Personal constructs are defined as characteristic ways of construing how some things are alike and some things are different from one another (alike/different is a simple faulty dualistic concept; more or less alike/more or less different; a computer keyboard is more alike to a typewriter but is more different than a piano which is less different than a musical keyboard); it is also important to clearly define our terms during discussions because had I not used the words “computer” and “musical” in front of the word “keyboard,” you may have become confused when first reading that statement. A personal construct can be thought of as a personally subjective way to organize, relate, and differentiate various types of information in an attempt to better predict and control future experiences. An individual develops personal constructs to form a kind of hypotheses as a way of anticipating what may or may not occur in social situations. Personal constructs are ways of anticipating social experiences and beliefs influence these anticipations that guide behavior and experience.
An individual with a permeable construct is open to change and may be seen by others as more open-minded and doesn’t adhere to the “absolute” dualistic concepts; by contrast, a person with a lower permeable construct may be seen as more inflexible and rigid, and adheres more strongly to “absolute” dualistic concepts. For example, discussing political perspectives with an individual lacking a permeable construct may come off as defensive and rude as the intensity of the conversation builds with conflicting views. A construct that is too permeable changes with virtually every experience, and therefore is a poor aid in the anticipation of events. When dualistically personal constructs contradict each other, it is difficult to make consistent sense of the world and anticipate events in an adaptive way.
Our behavior is negatively influenced by fragmented constructs, causing possible avoidant behavior and complete rejection of what another states in belief; fragmentation of ideas or incompleteness in the assembly of ideas is seen as the work of investigation and also as a deterrent or problem to learning and concluding. We fear a fragmentation of our conceptual beliefs because accepting any part of a new belief means a complete break down of our entire belief system to rework it and produces a lack of willingness to try to see how this new information could fit; we simply fail to understand that the fragmentation or shattering of our entire belief system is only temporary until we figure out how to incorporate this new information into our own beliefs, which only change a small part to accommodate and does not change our entire basic belief system. During the time it takes to rework our belief system, this temporary fragmentation makes our personal constructs feel too easily influenced and changed because all our beliefs become disconnected from each other, bringing us to feel vulnerable of accepting any new information while this process of reworking our whole belief system is occurring.
When we attempt to incorporate a part of someone else’s beliefs it requires a complete reassessment and investigation of our entire belief system to figure out how to work it in with what we already believe but those unable to think beyond dualistic concepts of “absolute” right/wrong or bad/good, will see it as a problem to learn and redraw conclusions as to what they truly do believe if they try understanding new information, making it much more simple for them to use less mental effort by completely rejecting the beliefs or ideas of another automatically.
To gain a clearer mental image of what I have explained above, consider this metaphor:
Imagine that your belief system is like a 2,000 piece puzzle you have already completed that clearly represents the picture on the box just as your entire belief system clearly represents your view of reality. The outer frame of the puzzle, which is where you always start putting the puzzle together, represents the basic foundation of your belief system, such as whether you believe in spirituality, an afterlife, a higher power or God; every puzzle piece within the outer frame is comparable to your every belief that is perfectly connected to several others which are connected to several others and so on, forming a completely intertwined understanding of reality, or the whole puzzle picture.
Just as we are rushed through life developing most of our beliefs without noticing, the creator of the puzzle was rushed through creating the puzzle picture; he or she notices this and decides that adding a new detailed image to the overall picture would make it feel more complete and connected, so he or she sends out a 200 piece expansion pack to all those who bought the puzzle for them to add this new detailed image to the center of the puzzle. This is comparable to someone expressing a belief to you and adding this new information to your entire belief system.
When you receive the expansion pack with the new detailed image added to the whole puzzle picture on the new box, you observe and compare the differences in the original puzzle picture with the new picture and decide that you would like to add it because it does seem to make the original overall picture more complete and connected. So you dismantle the entire originally completed puzzle picture except for the outer frame representative of your most basic beliefs within your belief system (spirituality, an afterlife, a higher power or God).
The outer frame does not need to be dismantled because it would be pointless to take it all apart and then have to rebuild the outer frame in the exact same way in which it was already pieced together; so instead, you leave the outer frame intact and disconnect every piece (belief) within the outer frame of the puzzle. Now, anyone who has ever put a puzzle together or watched someone do it knows that the picture on the box (your perception of reality) is not to scale as the actual puzzle itself and only provides an idea or guide to put the larger puzzle picture (your belief system) together.
After disconnecting every puzzle piece (belief) within the outer frame to fit this new detailed image in with the originally completed puzzle picture, you must begin trying to piece it all back together again starting from the insides of the outer frame working your way back toward the middle to include this new part of the overall puzzle picture. This is synonymous to the temporary fragmentation of your belief system when accepting a new belief from someone and the effort it takes to rework your entire belief system to include this new information; most people would likely not want to go through the work of dismantling the whole 2,000 piece puzzle once it has been finished to reconstruct it all over again to simply include a new 200 piece image, probably thinking that the finished puzzle picture looks good enough as it is after putting so much work into completing it the first time, automatically rejecting the option to add the new 200 piece image (another’s new belief) into the finished 2,000 piece puzzle picture (your “completed” belief system); it is not the belief from another that is being rejected, it is the effort it takes to include it!
I put quotes around the word “completed” in relation to your belief system because feeling that your beliefs are finished developing will cause rejection of most new information in comparison to your “absolute” right way of believing and severely limit your ability to learn as an adult. Also, it is very important to notice that in the belief-puzzle metaphor the originally completed puzzle picture (your original belief system) does not completely change by adding this new 200 piece image (new belief); the original puzzle picture (your initial belief system) stays completely the same as before with only the additional change of a small part that includes the new 200 piece image, or new information from another’s beliefs.
Personal Experience with Conflicting Beliefs
For example, during my philosophy course I was required to study Nietzsche’s philosophy which upon initially reading seemed atheistic and I believe in God, so I automatically rejected his ideas and immediately quit reading it for the time being; however, I had to read this for my class but before I came back to it, I had to come to the realization that I didn’t need to accept his whole philosophy, I could reject the anti-deistic parts and understand only the parts not focused around God that seemed logical. Once I convinced myself of this and began reading it once again, I realized that he didn’t mean what I had originally believed when he stated that “God is dead; mine is alive”.
All I saw when initially reading it was that God was dead and this completely conflicted with my entire belief system founded upon and totally structured around my belief in God; our most basic belief is whether we believe in God, an afterlife, spirit, etc. so to me this had the potential to bring down my whole belief system and completely change it, causing my mind to automatically reject it to where I simply could not read on any further at first!
Conflicting Beliefs in Conversation
This same thing happens when you hear a conflicting belief from another, you automatically reject it but instead of simply not reading any further, you just don’t listen any further which can make you seem like you’re being completely dismissive, ignoring them and being less understanding if this is a regular occurrence with others. We constantly alter our belief system as we mature but once reaching later adulthood we have developed such a complex and intertwined belief system that to alter it simply takes too much mental effort and is easier to simply reject new conflicting information without any mental motivation to try considering how or if it could possibly fit in with our beliefs, severely limiting our learning ability as an adult; fortunately, I had the mental and physical motivation of knowing I had to read and completely understand Nietzsche’s philosophy to get the highest grade possible if I was to maintain my 4.0 GPA.
Most people lack consideration of the mental and physical motivation for not totally dismissing and simply rejecting the beliefs of other’s during conversation; the physical motivation comes from considering how constantly and automatically rejecting the beliefs and ideas of other’s causes them to feel a lack of acceptance for what they say in a tone of serious belief along with them noticing your lack of awareness which appears like you’re ignoring that they feel deeply about what they’re saying and the mental motivation comes in the consideration of how this regular behavior of automatic rejection and dismissal makes those who are close to you feel when you are communicating with them. Simply ask yourself, “Am I the kind of person that others regularly come to talk to because I am easy to talk to or do others seem to avoid holding long conversations with me because I don’t show acceptant understanding of their beliefs by responding back mostly with my own conflicting beliefs which makes it seem like I don’t care about what they have to say?”
Understanding Doesn’t Need Acceptance
If another’s beliefs conflict with our own, don’t coldly reject and dismiss them; show some understanding in thinking about how it conflicts with your belief system and ask questions in search of responses providing adequate information to help you better understand what he or she is trying to say; understand that beliefs are founded upon concepts lacking physical and personal proof, causing us to feel the need to strongly defend them in fear that our whole belief system could easily fall apart with any newly presented information, but simply remember that asking questions is not an attempt to accept another’s beliefs as true, only an attempt to try showing some understanding for that which another believes is important.
When a person makes a statement about a belief, it is only a small part connected to their overall belief system; if a person talking to you feels that they can only state one small part of their beliefs at a time before you quickly respond by expressing your own beliefs as if yours are the only “right” ones without hardly ever asking any further questions about their beliefs, which would express that you are interested in what they have to say, that person learns to mostly stay quiet during conversation so as not to encounter rejection and dismissal on the importance of their beliefs while letting your beliefs seem like the only “right” ones by readily agreeing to any belief you state!
We hold fast to our beliefs because we believe that they are the only mental aspect that truly makes us who we are but this is only to ourselves; in other words, others don’t only care about our beliefs, yes it is nice to find others who share our beliefs but it’s much more about how we love, learn and approach uniquely new experiences with an open mind that people care about most! Approaching uniquely new experiences and information from others with an open mind shows our love for others through expression of a more understanding type of attitude and is the only effective way to continue learning throughout our entire life so that our conscious mind’s knowledge can evolve.
Bi-Directional Evolution of Consciousness
The bi-directional evolution of consciousness concerns evolution in the two directions of individual consciousness and the collective consciousness of the population. Notice how some dualistic concepts are setup with the more desirable aspect of the dichotomy shown first while others are setup with the more undesirable aspect first (happy/sad, true/false, right/wrong, reality/illusion, negative/positive, bad/good, conflict/peace, physical/nonphysical); this conceptual explanation on the evolutionary direction of consciousness must begin by understanding why certain aspects of the dualistic concepts needed to be experienced and believed first, individually and collectively.
Let’s think about this using a different one of the many dualistic concepts; as I mentioned before and in relation to the collective consciousness of the population, you can’t have the good without the bad because the experience of what’s first bad lets us know what it feels like to experience the good so that we may be sincerely grateful and truly appreciate it when we are capable of physically experiencing what is good, otherwise we would take advantage of what is good without the experience of knowing how bad it truly could be!
If you look around at our world, it is easy to notice that it has only been capable of advancing to this level due to the evolution of knowledge in the conscious mind. My psychology courses allowed me to understand that the history in this field of science, like all others, was filled with the experimental interpretations of evidence from scientists who were later proven inaccurate by new scientists researching similar evidence in different ways with new perspectives; in other words, the experimental evidence obtained using the “flawless” scientific method that provided information thought “absolutely” true was always later proven to be less accurate or more false when new scientists with more evolved and complex perspectives reproduced the experiments.
It seems that the evolution of consciousness required us to behave in doing the best we could to prove and perceive of something as “absolutely” true for us to only discover later that what we believed true was actually more false, producing the illusion of reality; the dualistic concepts of happy/sad, true/false, right/wrong and reality/illusion are setup in this way because we must individually seek out and believe the first part of the dualistic concept to be able to function in our immediate reality while we slowly and humbly discover the second part; just imagine what life would be like if you initially sought out experiences while believing you were always sad, what you believed was always false, what you said was always wrong and what you saw was always an illusion.
The dualistic concepts that escape this way of collectively perceiving are negative/positive, bad/good, conflict/peace, physical/nonphysical and illusion/reality because those controlling the media constantly have the population focus on the negative, bad, conflict, physical and the illusion; these concepts are setup in this way and in relation to the collective consciousness of the entire population. So, the bi-directional evolution of consciousness required the happy, true, right and reality aspects to be believed first in the individual conscious mind to function within “physical” reality and requires the negative, bad, conflict, physical and illusion to be believed first in the collective consciousness of the population to function as a society and slow its exponential evolution.
Exponential Evolution of Consciousness
To understand the concept of exponential evolution, we must first look at the advancement of technology in the last 10 – 12 years which is only the result of intelligent consciousness. When we consider the time since the internet and cell phones began, their advancement in the past 12 years has grown more rapidly when compared to the amount of time it took for the internet and cell phones to initially begin; their advancement occurred almost in the blink of an eye when you consider the thousands of years it took for them to be developed and the short amount of time it took for them to become commonly used. As the result of our advancement in technology, technology is advancing even faster as a result of the technology itself; this is exponential evolution.
Now, this exponential evolution of technology has provided the conscious mind with the ability to have vast amounts of any information, instant communication and open access to once copy-write protected media at our fingertips. As a result of this ever quickly advancing in technology, it is having the same effect on consciousness because technology is the result of consciousness, causing the exponential evolution of consciousness. For example, cell phones with internet have become so common that when two people are having a discussion about something which they are uncertain of, they no longer have to end that conversation and just wonder about the topic of discussion, one or both can pick up their cell phone and Google the answer.
This quick and easy availability of information is causing our conscious knowledge in the nonphysical realm of reality to grow faster every day and without societal events making us focus more on the physical dimension of reality, our consciousness’ would end up evolving into the nonphysical dimension too quickly, causing us confusion and distress as our reality would be changing too quickly for us to keep up. This is why the media has the collective consciousness focus on the bad, negative and conflict as a way to slow down consciousness’ exponential evolution into a more good, positive, peaceful and nonphysical experience of reality.
Let’s look further into how the controlling of nonphysical concepts is used to slow down our exponential evolution of consciousness and why it is needed.
Kowalski, R. & Westen, D. (2009). Psychology (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.